60 karma · joined August 3, 2018
> The type of personal integration we attain – or the effective lack thereof – depends on what possibilities our life situation offers us for the development of autonomy. It is a distorted development that is the root cause of the pathological and, ultimately, evil element in human beings.
> The struggle for autonomy heightens our aliveness. Insofar as the socialization process blocks autonomy, however, this process engenders the evil it attempts to prevent. If parental love is so distorted that it demands submission and dependence for its self-confirmation, social adjustment turns into a test of obedience and the child’s efforts to comply bring with them the loss of genuine feelings. The human being then becomes the true source of evil.
-- Arno Gruen, "The Betrayal of the Self: The Fear of Autonomy in Men and Women"
> Maximizing profits seems pretty ethical to me.
Up to extracting gold teeth from people murdered in concentration camps, or is there a limit for you?
> [Q: Isn't there a certain calculus that someone who is sitting in the shoes of a Condoleezza Rice can make, that they're responsible for the best outcome for American citizens, and there's an upside of going into Iraq which is we get one of the greatest material possessions in world's history, and there're downsides which are: we upset the international community, and maybe there's more terrorism. Couldn't you envision a calculus where they say, sure, that's the reason, and it's a good reason, let's do it. What's the flaw in the calculus?]
> Oh, I think that's exactly their calculus. But then we ought to just be honest and say, "Look, we're a bunch of Nazis." So fine, let's just drop all the discussion, we save a lot of trees, we can throw out the newspapers and most of the scholarly literature, and just come out, state it straight, and tell the truth: we'll do whatever we want because we think we're gonna gain by it. And incidently, it's not American citizens who'll gain. They don't gain by this. It's narrow sectors of domestic power that the administration is serving with quite unusual dedication...
-- Noam Chomsky, Talk titled "Why Iraq?" at Harvard University, November 4, 2002
It seems unfortunate to you, because you are not aware of the thought and research that went into this insight, and the roughly 100 million dead people.
It's not our job to "fix China". It's like some abusive alcoholic -- it's basically their problem, but if you go out drinking with them, and hold their beer when they kill random strangers, and then continue the conversation like nothing happened, you're helping making it worse, and are direct party to normalizing it.
Companies don't have to pull out of China, they'd just have to speak up and never shut up, and China would kick them out. And maybe one day, when the hangover is particularly bad, there might be a hazy memory of an upright person saying "call me when you realized this isn't working".
When people protested against Hitler, it was with slogans such as "murder isn't politics". Likewise, cooperation with murderers isn't business.
Like that Roman dude said, the mind is a fire to be kindled, not a vessel to be filled, so it seems with life. To have or to be... if only I could live 1000 years, if only 10000, if only 100000... is it so absurd to at least consider it possible that we would treat it just like we treat RAM and CPU now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Sure, it's apples and oranges in a way, but satisfaction really is something that happens in the mind and not just the external circumstances, so I don't see why we wouldn't be able to consider any amount of time "not long enough" at some point. Doesn't mean we would, but if we did, we would have gained nothing, other than less diversity of persons.
> We feel free to express ourselves because we are ready to fade into emptiness. When we are trying to be active and special and to accomplish something, we cannot express ourselves... So we have enjoyment, we are free.
-- Shunryu Suzuki
> Of short duration are those who praise as well as those who are praised, those who remember and those who are remembered. And even that happens just in one corner of the world, and even there not everybody agrees with one another, a single person doesn't even agree with themselves. This whole Earth however is but a dot.
-- Marcus Aurelius
This does not change meaningfully, to me, if you replace Earth with Universe and short duration with 10^10000 years. It's the same basic problem, and even I am constantly in flux, not ever the exact same person I was an instant ago. So why not get over that? For me letting go of some things doesn't mean giving anything up, it's more like having the hands free to receive better things; I like the tiny actual place I have in reality more than an imaginary big one that requires all sorts of ballast and images, layers of abstraction and alienation.
But it doesn't stop there does it, and it's a perfect example of the shit you find if you just dig the tiniest bit.
http://www.calvertjournal.com/opinion/show/1487/roscosmos-pr...
> However, Tsiolkovsky’s interests did not lie just in the fields of engineering and rocket design; he was also interested in social reform. In 1928 he published a book called The Unknown Intelligence in which he argued that humans would colonise our galaxy and introduce the philosophy of panpsychism, a sinister form of anthropocentric perfectionism with a eugenic streak. Tsiolkovsky believed that atoms have their own form of intelligence and that if all the lower forms of life were eliminated, then the suffering of the “human, higher atoms” would be lessened, as they would not have to go back to the bottom of the pyramid of existence but would be reused again in the highest form of matter — humans. To achieve this, Tsiolkovsky suggested sterilising all fauna and aquatic life, and most of the flora on Earth, leaving only those plants necessary for nutrition. His plans did not stop there, but embraced the full extent of eugenics: he proposed using the same remedy to eliminate all “imperfect” members of humankind, so that only the best, healthiest and most intelligent people would be allowed to reproduce. Their offspring would then go on to create a higher caste of Nietzschean Übermenschen and, ultimately, reach the much longed-for goal of immortality.
Nietzsche would have laughed his ass off I guess.. just consider the opposite of the Übermensch, the last man:
> The earth has become small, and on it hops the last man, who makes everything small. His race is as ineradicable as the flea; the last man lives longest.
> 'We have invented happiness,'say the last men, and they blink. They have left the regions where it was hard to live, for one needs warmth.
How do you get from that to sterilizing all life on Earth so you don't have to be a bird or a dog every now and then? That's so incredibly impoverished, and fits perfectly into what I outlined.
> We have more life than we know what to do with. We have life far beyond the point where it becomes a sick caricature of itself. We prolong life until it becomes a sickness, an abomination, a miserable and pathetic flight from death that saps out and mocks everything that made life desirable in the first place.
-- Scott Alexander ( http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/07/17/who-by-very-slow-decay/ )
> You ever look at their faces? ... “I’m pro-life!” [makes a pinched face of hate and fear; his lips are pursed as though he’s just sucked on a lemon.] “I’m pro-life!” Boy, they look it, don’t they? They just exude joie de vivre. You just want to hang with them and play Trivial Pursuit all night long.
-- Bill Hicks
> The real damage is done by those millions who want to 'survive.' The honest men who just want to be left in peace. Those who don’t want their little lives disturbed by anything bigger than themselves. Those with no sides and no causes. Those who won’t take measure of their own strength, for fear of antagonizing their own weakness. Those who don’t like to make waves—or enemies. Those for whom freedom, honour, truth, and principles are only literature. Those who live small, mate small, die small. It’s the reductionist approach to life: if you keep it small, you’ll keep it under control. If you don’t make any noise, the bogeyman won’t find you. But it’s all an illusion, because they die too, those people who roll up their spirits into tiny little balls so as to be safe. Safe?! From what? Life is always on the edge of death; narrow streets lead to the same place as wide avenues, and a little candle burns itself out just like a flaming torch does. I choose my own way to burn.
-- "Sophie Scholl - The Last Days
> If only we try to live sincerely, it will go well with us, even though we are certain to experience real sorrow, and great disappointments, and also will probably commit great faults and do wrong things, but it certainly is true, that it is better to be high-spirited, even though one makes more mistakes, than to be narrow-minded and all too prudent. It is good to love many things, for therein lies the true strength, and whosoever loves much performs much, and can accomplish much, and what is done in love, is well done.
-- Vincent van Gogh
> A man has made at least a start on discovering the meaning of human life when he plants shade trees under which he knows full well he will never sit.
-- D. Elton Trueblood
There, that's some quotes with some actual wisdom behind them, with actual brains and guts. A petty "me me me" isn't the solution to age-old problems, it's regression. Even after 3 decades of gobbling up sci-fi stories, even though I don't "lack imagination" to consider "uploading brains into virtual worlds", but simply imagine additional things, I can't unsee the people and their ticks. I can't unsee how we treat the poor and voiceless today, and how we show no signs of letting up. This new age transhumanism religious stuff, and it's nothing more, comes from the worst and the weakest, not the most noble humanity has to offer. I stand by that, and am still open for counterexamples, but require no more examples of it.
Especially since people asking that generally know nothing about the people who criticize a thing, and what else they might criticize in other contexts. It's not like they're busy criticizing some bigger evil and criticism of $thing_under_current_discussion blocks their noble work. At worst they're doing nothing, yet expect others who are doing something -- even if that's just making one decision against one product or company, rather than zero, and making one comment about their own personal actual stance, instead of about synthesized hypothetical persons -- to take some time out of their day to answer pointless "questions".
You're right, a threat is potential damage, these things are done damage.
On a very basic level, if I feel myself to be entitled to live forever, then I couldn't rightfully deny that to anyone else. So at some point this would mean less new births. If it didn't, it would mean an even more crass explosion of the human footprint, an even more extreme choking out of other lifeforms -- and it could very well mean both. But that would suck, since being healthy and alive isn't just great because I can see 5000 million particles rendered in 3 lines of CSS, or watch the clouds go by, it's also because of the flora and fauna, and because of other people. Beings that surprise me, that come into the world and "become". Knowing there will be future question marks born is something way more sublime for me than "attack ships on fire" or having this one video that got 7234 million views.
Life isn't just me, it's also a river in which I am a drop. If I want to not be a drop, so I can keep seeing the river, well... if everybody does that, there is no more river, and if I want to reserve immortality for just myself, I am an asshole. I don't mean to brag, but I figured that out as a kid, and no immortality advocate I read or heard or saw so far managed to put a meaningful dent in it.
Yes, I am for medicine, I think it's great when people can live longer and stay healthy longer (even though we then ignore their wisdom when it's inconvenient, e.g. [0]), but no, I cannot draw you an exact line, except that I know "immortality" as extreme and as espoused by technophiles or emperors or preachers does not interest me, at all. If anything I'm curious about the biographies of the people looking for it; they point at some clouds that may or may not have a moon behind it, but I can't help but look from the finger to their arm to their shoulders to their head. I feel that's where the majority if not all of the action is.
Last, but not least: even if you managed to completely overcome all aging and disease, assuming no asteroids and other surprises: the only way to ensure you will live "forever" is to severely restrict the agency of anyone else but you. Other humans acting would be a potential threat, in infinite time it would become an infinite threat, while at the same time you have an infinite lifetime to lose. Nothing might be too crazy and machavellian, and like junkies people might just keep going down the spiral long after they lost all joy in it.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17721280 <-- 99 years...
It might seem that way when you ignore attacks on people by the surveillance state. From the invasion of privacy en masse, to people being disappeared, thus robbing them of even their deaths in a way not even the most heinous terrorist attacks do. It's like nuking a city and then saying you "stopped all car thefts" in it.
It's just as fundamentalist and religious, only with a party line that can shift on its own, vs. preachers who shift their interpretations of fixed scripture, for the same result.
Also, monuments destroyed in medieval times? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
> The start of the Cultural Revolution brought huge numbers of Red Guards to Beijing, with all expenses paid by the government, and the railway system was in turmoil. The revolution aimed to destroy the "Four Olds" (old customs, old culture, old habits, and old ideas) and establish the corresponding "Four News", and this can range from changing of names and cutting of hair, to the ransacking of homes, vandalizing cultural treasures, and desecrating temples. In a few years, countless ancient buildings, artifacts, antiques, books, and paintings were destroyed by Red Guards.
Doesn't sound so great. A book I can recommend is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Swans
> it might take materialist brainwashing ('re-education') to reverse religious brainwashing.
They're not even getting "materialist" brainwashing, whatever that would even be, they're getting totalitarian brainwashing. Within the framework of totalitarianism, where there is no truth except the truth enforced by coercion, what you say makes sense: only a stronger lie can combat an existing lie, and anything grounded in truth or voluntary insight is lava.
It's still essentially arguing wether a turd or a puddle of puke constitutes better tasting food -- any no doubt existing differences are meaningless, they should never make you pick one or the other.
> "Factuality itself depends for its continued existence upon the existence of the nontotalitarian world." -- Hannah Arendt
> When DER SPIEGEL visited Hotan in 2014, it was still possible to meet with a man who told us about the Chinese government's harsh measures in the surrounding towns. Such a meeting would be out of the question today, the man now informs us through a messaging app. It's not even possible to drive from one town to another without written permission, much less meet with a foreigner. "Maybe in a few years," he writes, adding: "Delete this conversation from your phone immediately. Delete everything that could be suspicious."
> There is a modern shopping center at the edge of the city, though barely one in five stores is still open. Most of the others were closed recently due to "security and stability measures," according to the official seals adhered to the doors. "Everyone was sent to school," one passerby says quietly while looking around.
> "Qu xuexi," meaning to go or be sent to study, is one of the most common expressions in Xinjiang these days. It is a euphemism for having been taken away and not having been seen or heard from since. The "schools" are re-education centers in which the detainees are being forced to take courses in Chinese and patriotism, without any indictment, due process or a fair hearing.
> More than half the people we met along the way during our journey spoke of family members or acquaintances who were "sent to school." One driver in Hotan talked about his 72-year-old grandfather. A person in Urumqi told the story of his daughter's professor. An airplane passenger spoke of his best friend.
> The stories differ, yet they all contain important parallels. Most of the people affected are men. The arrests usually occur at night or in the early morning. The reasons cited include contacts abroad, too many visits to a mosque or possessing forbidden content on a mobile phone or computer. Relatives of those who are apprehended often don't hear from them for months. And when they do manage to see them again, it's never in person but rather via video stream from the prison visitor area.
> During a conversation with a rug salesman at the market in Hotan, a woman in a short dress shows up and joins the chat. She says she works for an office nearby, and that she has taken the day off. She offers to translate the conversation with the salesman from Uighur into Chinese. No, she will later say as she walks across the nearly empty market, the store closures have nothing to do with re-education camps. "The employees were sent away for technical training," she says. Then she politely says goodbye.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/minority-report/2014...
> in shame-based cultures, public humiliation, scorn, or censure are relied upon more heavily to keep individuals in obedience whereas the western notion of guilt and corrective behaviors comes from an individual’s development of an internal conscience.
Now we moving towards automated analysis and manipulation of billions of people in real time, combined with incredible means to observe and control, not to even talk of weapon systems; and an astonishing obedience or naivity about it on behalf of the subjects.
"This is not new" is no excuse and of no help. You could say this about almost anything... as if we only get a chance to be critical of something and express that criticism (which is the first state of organizing change) the first time something "happens".
You're not a corporation. Talk like the person you are, not like a corporation you are not, and which has no mouth and nothing to say.
Also, once people see things under the facade, such as
> “Letting you ask that question is the voice that you have. Very few companies would allow you to do that.”
This is very recent: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17682348
> “Everyone’s access to documents got turned off, and is being turned on [on a] document-by-document basis,” said one source. “There’s been total radio silence from leadership, which is making a lot of people upset and scared. … Our internal meme site and Google Plus are full of talk, and people are a.n.g.r.y.”
I wouldn't know if that is true, but on HN, such stories seemed to mostly plummet off the front page, with no commentary by Googlers. It's pretty hard to know what people who can't talk freely are thinking.
Though I agree that there isn't likely to be an equivalent to Snowden's "the American people have a right to know about this so they can make decisions", that is, other than on a personal level.
But let's first and foremost understand that we don't know what either of this "was" or "is", because that involves a whole lot of people, most of whom we haven't heard of, much less candidly. The factuality of that is worth more than speculation and generalization. It does say something in and of itself, something that is not good, but it's still not a canvas onto which we can just draw things, because they cannot or won't protest and nothing can be verified.
> Compare your Googlers with Edward Snowden.
The average Googler is a fiction. There are only the actual people.
It's also great for static things with too little light and no tripod. With enough attempts, at least one of them will be a lot less blurry than the average.
In good light with static objects, I'll take a handful of shots even of the same framing. Even though one "would be enough", and nobody would notice anything wrong with it, if you take a bunch and compare them you can get rewarded greatly. The focus will never sit in the exact spot.
Yeah, or "the US government respected Germany’s right to govern its own citizens" as it says here: https://exhibitions.ushmm.org/americans-and-the-holocaust/ma...
> They may not have the same system and freedom that the West is used to, but authoritarianism has been the norm in China for centuries.
Antisemitism had been pretty "normal" for 2 millenia in Europe. Would you go to a holocaust museum and roll your eyes at them, too? Mayne tell them the death camps in annexed territories were bad, but that all the stuff from 1933 to 1939 should be removed, because it was just internal politics and making a judgement about that just shows how little one knows.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolperstein
Can you even imagine how many of those were put up in response to mere internal politics? You should clear up how none of that was bad, would save a lot of money on maintaining exhibits, and archiving survivor testomies and all that.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/china-s-xinjiang-p...
> More than half the people we met along the way during our journey spoke of family members or acquaintances who were "sent to school." One driver in Hotan talked about his 72-year-old grandfather. A person in Urumqi told the story of his daughter's professor. An airplane passenger spoke of his best friend.
I guess they forgot to mention that authoritarianism has been the norm in China for centuries, so being tortured or a loved one being disappeared and killed doesn't really bother them. They have a "different system and freedom", after all. As does anyone who moves there, anyone the secret police gets their paws on, even internationally. When they get locked up and murdered, they don't really feel it the same way you or I do. When they have families and friendships, it's not like they're actually sad when that ends. They don't suppress showing pain they feel, they simply don't feel it in the first place.
It's all good, nothing to see here. Just the normal day to day business of being a monster.
When you find a bug, do you fix the bug, or do you go "ohh, but this isn't the first time anything ever had a bug"? When someone flashes you in the park, do you call the cops or do you say "it's hardly unique for this person to be doing this"?
The article is kinda meh, there really isn't anything to discuss, but that doesn't make lying to kids to push another product noble or interesting. I'd sooner interested in the upbringing of the people who enter that "field" than their own rationalizations. I've seen enough to know there's a problem behind the chaff.
I don't have a clear cut answer myself, because on the other hand, anonymity opens the floodgates to so much manipulation that also ends up hurting real people, and that will only get worse as technology gets refined in those directions. Those that want to control and manipulate won't give up easily either way, there's totalitarian "victory" possible in either direction:
Tie everything anywhere to a real name, and people will ultimately police their own thoughts, because wanting to say things you can't say sucks, so they'll stop wanting that, the one thing they have control over. Keeping foggy and dynamic what is and what isn't allowed to say will make people shrink to the smallest possible attack surface that still allows basic physical survival.
Go the other route and make everything accessible to (super advanced) bots, make it impossible to confirm anyone's identity or follow any money trails, and with enough of that people can be be manipulated by an overwhelming, yet fabricated social consensus, and herded into bubbles.
Of course, the worst of both worlds is also possible.
Anyway, anonymity online gets a very onesided rap. Some of my fondest "internet memories" were exchanges were with total strangers. Maybe I just remember those differently (I don't really think of online interactions with real life frieds as online interactions), because they always came out of the blue, or because they seemed to mean more, since we both know we'd never meet again and were being open or helpful just for the sake of it, with the reward being purely personal gain (even joy is gain), not social capital.
> Why do we travel? Among other things, to meet people who don't think they know us once and for all; so we may experience once more what is possible for us in this life.
-- Max Frisch
Here's Linux talking about being straightforward, and why he cannot afford ambiguity:
A tiger born in a cage who experiences nothing but being fed every now will behave and feel very much worse than a free one. Children who were never treated with respect and never saw anyone else treated with respect don't suffer less harm in their development just because they don't know the difference.
I think at some very basic level, privacy is an obligatory requirement of becoming an individual person. An important part of the person grows when reflecting, when being alone with one's conscience, that's just as necessary as facing others. If you get all of either and none of the other, there's going to be a price.
Or take lead for example, if we increased our average exposure by a lot, that wouldn't mean that it now doesn't damage our central nervous system and organs anymore, not even for those who never knew lower levels of exposure. You can have the negative consequences without awareness of what is going on, and without any means to make it better.
A lot of the pressures already get relieved by consumerism at best, cruelty towards victims and identification with abusers at worst -- instead of being channeled towards the causes, it gets channeled towards what will make it worse. I think the rock bottom of that would a world unrecognizable even to Edgar Allan Poe.
If you get any results, just a reproducible blip, then try things you haven't made yourself in a controlled environment... but if you can't even get it there, it seems kind of pointless to mess around with really old things.
That's my layman armchair perspective anyway, but from the armchair it makes sense :D
When working for an ISP it came up quite a few times that customers had extensive questions about security because they were genuinely worried about their ex-spouse spying on them. Even if they were all just "paranoid" in their specific cases (I wouldn't know), I think it's a fair concern. If all it takes is some googling and a bit of money to rent cloud GPU's, well, scorned lovers have done way more expensive and less effective things to cause damage or violate privacy.